No, a fact of war, of battle.
There is no way around collateral damage in open warfare, humans make mistakes, machines make mistakes.
An enemy plane is shot down and lands on houses, a bobby trap is set off by a kid, a missile's GPS calibration is off and strikes a hospital.

stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.

Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?

We are not in control of natural disasters. Acceptable does not matter.

A bombing, when it avoids a land invasion, is preferable. The other option tends to lead to far more deaths. Sometimes they may do a small scale operation with a few soldiers, but this is usually top secret like the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Typically the bombing is done in part because it minimizes collateral damage.

stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.

Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?

Death's via natural events are a part of life for people the live in areas prone to dangerous natural events.
Are they preventable? Perhaps, at least to some degree.
Are they acceptable?
To the people that live in Tornado alley for example, it seems so.

stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.

Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?

We are not in control of natural disasters. Acceptable does not matter.

A bombing, when it avoids a land invasion, is preferable. The other option tends to lead to far more deaths. Sometimes they may do a small scale operation with a few soldiers, but this is usually top secret like the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Typically the bombing is done in part because it minimizes collateral damage.

In wars, who figures out which side is the good side and that any deaths are preferable?

stuartcr wrote:What about bombing from 20Kft? Many strikes are planned with an acceptable percentage of known collateral damage.

Are deaths by natural disasters considered acceptable?

We are not in control of natural disasters. Acceptable does not matter.

A bombing, when it avoids a land invasion, is preferable. The other option tends to lead to far more deaths. Sometimes they may do a small scale operation with a few soldiers, but this is usually top secret like the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Typically the bombing is done in part because it minimizes collateral damage.

In wars, who figures out which side is the good side and that any deaths are preferable?